Why do you allow blatant sexism to go unchecked?

[MissingHaversham]

I've read the explanation in the dv thread, but don't really understand the reasoning. Racism is not a personal attack either, but is deleted anyway.

This is the best place I know online, but this policy of allowing hateful posts about women and not tackling the obvious MRA trolls is starting to leave a bad taste. I know you don't comment, SS and all that, but whatever you are doing doesn't seem to be working. The MRA trolls don't even try to pretend they're not anymore because they've realised there are no sanctions.

The feminism board was absolutely battered by this, and individual posters were driven away, but nothing was done. Now it's the relationships board that's in the firing line and, again, it seems nothing will be done.

It seems really inconsistent to run campaigns like the don't sexualise our girls one, and yet allow blatant and aggressive sexism to flourish unchecked on your boards.

Perhaps if you would explain this beyond the personal attack/offence dichotomy, which doesn't stand up anyway, it might help. As it stands, it does feel as though you've rather moved on from behaving as though your community matters to you.

Yay. violence against women as just another lifestyle choice - hey, we all have our points of view, and it is so terrible qnd damaging that someone can't give dangerous advice and advocate for women to live as POWs

i have some advice for dangerous men: everyone everywhere would be not only better off, but positively rejoicing if you just dropped dead, as soon as and as painfully as possible! I mean that really supportively, violent men, HTH!

Sunshine, I think there's a bit of conflating going on there. I agree that anything that incites hatred or violence wrt vulnerable groups should go, and I do think women come under 'vulnerable groups'. My point is that the OP on the DV thread, and ken123's earlier posts on it, did not (in my opinion) incite hatred or violence. They simply expressed views with which some feminists disagree. And people actually are allowed to do that on Mumsnet.

MissingHaversham - lol. I wondered how long it would be before someone decided I wasn't a feminist. I disagree with you, is all. I utterly reject the kind of feminism which seeks to close down discussion and make the expression of (non-inciteful) dissent a thought-crime. IMO it's tedious, it's counter-productive, it's wrong-headed and it's authoritarian. (And none of my posts on this thread were about the post of ken123's to which you refer, for the simple reason that I posted my posts before he posted that one.)

I haven't decided you're not a feminist, Bean. I'm trying to understand how dismissing some pretty disturbing rhetoric about domestic violence fits in with your feminism, which is why I wondered if you could explain it. Moving straight to thought-crime etc. seems a little extreme.

more non-logic. Disturbing amount of it about at the moment.
Kens123 suffered badly from illogical leaps.

Quite, Thumbwitch.